tg_resolve

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool does not open or join anything, and explains how non-Telegram URLs are handled ('reported as external') with a safety rule about not fetching them based on message content. This goes beyond the bare 'resolve' verb and gives meaningful security/behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences deliver purpose, scope, and a critical safety instruction with zero filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (multiple link types and varied output), the description covers the essential behaviors: what it resolves, what it returns for each link type (title, member count, message, etc.), and external URL handling. An output schema exists, so detailed return formatting is not required here. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has a single 'link' parameter with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing the accepted link formats (t.me/username, t.me/+invitehash, etc.), which tells the user the expected input structure. This adds semantic value that the schema lacks.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb phrase 'Say what a Telegram link points at' and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by stating it does so 'without opening or joining anything.' It enumerates the exact link types handled (t.me/username, t.me/+invitehash, joinchat, t.me/c/..., t.me/user/<id>, addstickers), leaving no ambiguity about scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: it resolves Telegram links without side effects, and explicitly warns against fetching external URLs unless the user asked for it. It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, but the 'without opening or joining' and 'fetch with a web tool only if the user asked' guidance effectively tells when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.